VARADARAJASWAMIVARI TEMPLE Vs. SRI KRISHNAPPA GOVINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER Hosakotta in Salem District had been notified by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act --the Settlement Officer initiated proceedings suo motu under Section 9 to determine whether Hosakota was an inam estate within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of the Abolition Act. Sri varada-rajaswami Devastanam contended that what had been granted in inam to the Devastanam did not constitute an estate at all as defined by Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and that it could not be and was not an inam estate within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of the Abolition Act. The tenants contended that it was an estate and an inam estate. Virtually the only evidence on which the question at issue had to be decided was that afforded by the entries in the Inam Fair Register, to the scope of which I shall advert later. It is enough to note at present that the village included besides the inam granted to the devastanam three other inams, which could be conveniently referred to as minor inams, the total extent of which was 22. 23 acres.

(2.) THE Settlement Officer held that Hosakotta was an estate within the scope of section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act, and relying on the presumption permitted by Section 9 (7) of the Abolition Act he held Further that it was an inam estate. The devastanam appealed to the Tribunal against the decision of the Settlement officer. The Tribunal upheld the contention of tho Devastanam that what had been confirmed as an inam grant in its favour was not the whole village of Hosakotta but only an extent of 163. 53 acres in that village. Since tho grant was not of a village, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that what had been granted in inarn to the devastanam did not constitute an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d)of the Estates Land Act. The Tribunal also found that there was no proof that the grant of the three minor inams was anterior in point of time to that in favour of the devastanam. The Tribunal held that Hosakotta was not an inam estate and allowed the appeal.

(3.) ONE of the tenants of the Devastanam, tho first respondent in the appeal before us, applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Tribunal. In disposing of that application Rajagopala aiyangar J. held that the evidence on record satisfied the requirements of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act read with Explanation (1) thereto, and that the grant to the devastanam had been of the whole village. He further held that the minor inams which stood excluded from that grant had been granted earlier than the grant to the devastanam. The learned Judge was of the view, that the Tribunal was in error when it held that the inam granted to the devastanam did not constitute an inam estate. The learned Judge directed the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Tribunal.